New Statutory body as an alternative to the NHS for mental health and hidden disability

And one more thing to add before I bail out to walk my dogs.

The centres should fundamentally be tasked not just to help the person that comes there negotiate the problems they encounter.  They should address the systemic problems they encounter that cause them....

One thing that would stop issues ia if ALL staff in All Buisnessea had to understand all disablitys but Bo they go on a crap awareness course where a man in ansuit twoks them what aswers to give Eto pass a one page test

This is the very reason why urgent amendments to the Autism Act 2009 must be made, with far greater enforcement powers (in a similar way to the health and safety laws) and with massively increased provision for police investigations and criminal prosecutions of senior management who are found not implementing the provisions correctly - only when we as autistic people have ever more draconian laws to protect our rights will we ever get anywhere - there is no point in having laws unless they are properly enforced and there also needs to be greater monitoring and supervision of senior management specially provided for in any amendments to the Autism Act 2009 

Thanks TheCatWoman 

taking these one at a time:

legislation working or not: when seatbelt mandates (1983) and the indoor smoking ban (2007) were introduced in the UK, there was initial vocal resistance. However, because the legal consequences were direct and strictly enforced, behaviour shifted immediately.

TheCatWoman said:

We'd need to revisit child protection law again to not fall foul of the mandatory reporting

Yes we do - the clear implications of the recent Russell Brand Trial show that those issues aren't specifically related to mandatory reporting it's the way the system is set up in relationship to what follows it.  The legislation is in place broadly - ensure it's enacted.  Trust in police can only be regenerated when they do their (very difficult job) better - the hubs would potentially ensure they do/help them do it.

TheCatWoman said:

Would these hubs have the capacity to help people who recognise their own behaviour is abusive or problematic and want to stop?

Yes of course.  How to manage both perpetrator and victims being there is a practicality of doors and ensuring support and understanding is in place.  I observe that many perpetrators I believe are found to have been victims themselves in the past.

TheCatWoman said:

What about those who's physical health intersects with their mental health?

The hub enables their intersection with the "physical health service" using the same process for education/workplace.

Has that shot the problems.

This is idealistic of course - and yes no system is entirely perfect - a work in progress - I seem to remember a DaVinci quote about art never being finished - simply abondoned.

So clearly another trouble shooting thing is to prevent abandonment.  To ensure that the legal maintenance and beneficial  functional evolution of his system be clearly designed and maintained.  Again minimum bureaucracy but sufficient oversight - flexible for local variation according to needs but stable enough to withstand challenges.  I'd add another simple "rule" that he staffing levels and resources are such that they represent say 140% of what the accurately measured need is.

Staff should be able to work according to a "70%" rule of their maximum capability - otherwise they experience and become part of the problem they work to resolve,

Thanks TheCatWoman 

taking these one at a time:

legislation working or not: when seatbelt mandates (1983) and the indoor smoking ban (2007) were introduced in the UK, there was initial vocal resistance. However, because the legal consequences were direct and strictly enforced, behaviour shifted immediately.

TheCatWoman said:

We'd need to revisit child protection law again to not fall foul of the mandatory reporting

Yes we do - the clear implications of the recent Russell Brand Trial show that those issues aren't specifically related to mandatory reporting it's the way the system is set up in relationship to what follows it.  The legislation is in place broadly - ensure it's enacted.  Trust in police can only be regenerated when they do their (very difficult job) better - the hubs would potentially ensure they do/help them do it.

TheCatWoman said:

Would these hubs have the capacity to help people who recognise their own behaviour is abusive or problematic and want to stop?

Yes of course.  How to manage both perpetrator and victims being there is a practicality of doors and ensuring support and understanding is in place.  I observe that many perpetrators I believe are found to have been victims themselves in the past.

TheCatWoman said:

What about those who's physical health intersects with their mental health?

The hub enables their intersection with the "physical health service" using the same process for education/workplace.

Has that shot the problems.

This is idealistic of course - and yes no system is entirely perfect - a work in progress - I seem to remember a DaVinci quote about art never being finished - simply abondoned.

So clearly another trouble shooting thing is to prevent abandonment.  To ensure that the legal maintenance and beneficial  functional evolution of his system be clearly designed and maintained.  Again minimum bureaucracy but sufficient oversight - flexible for local variation according to needs but stable enough to withstand challenges.  I'd add another simple "rule" that he staffing levels and resources are such that they represent say 140% of what the accurately measured need is.

Staff should be able to work according to a "70%" rule of their maximum capability - otherwise they experience and become part of the problem they work to resolve,